TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 25, New Delhi wherein vide order dated 28/05/2015, penalty of ₹ 15,45,387/- imposed under section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and pertaining to assessment year 2004 05 has been confirmed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company had filed its return income at ₹ 76,93,966/- and the assessment was completed under section 153A/143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at ₹ 2,41,80,260/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssly erred in holding that the appellant had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income ignoring the fact that the loss on redemption of units was admissible to the appellant except for the deeming provision under section 97 (4) of the Act. 4 That the appellant craves to leave, add, alter or delete the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 3. The Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee had filed its return of income by claiming setoff of capital gains against short-term capital loss arising on redemption of various mutual funds/units. It was submitted that the claim for the adjustment of loss arising on redemption of units against the capital gain was made as the assessee was unaware of the provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iculars of income. It was submitted that in view of the legal as well as the factual position, the penalty should be deleted. 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative read out extensively from the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) and submitted that the penalty had been rightly levied as ignorance of law could not be an excuse. It was submitted that the assessee had made a wrong claim on account of capital loss and, therefore, the penalty was rightly imposed. The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the penalty imposed and as confirmed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) should be upheld. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the relevant material placed on record. We would like to refer to the decision of the Hon ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served that by reading the words inaccurate and particulars in conjunction, they must mean the details supplied in the return, which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. The Hon ble Court further noted that it was an admitted position that no information given in the return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. The Hon ble Court observed that it was not as if any statement made or any detail supplied was found to be factually incorrect and, accordingly, held that, prima facie, the assessee could not be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Hon ble Court dismissed the contention raised by the counsel for the revenue that submitting an incorrect claim in law for the expenditure o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccurate particulars of his income. The present is not a case of concealment of income. That is not the case of the Revenue either. However, the Ld. Counsel for the revenue suggested that by making incorrect claim for the expenditure on interest, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. As per Law Lexicon, the meaning of the word particular is a detail or details (in plural sense); the details of a claim, or the separate items of an account. Therefore, the word particulars used in the section 271 (1) (c) would embrace the meaning of the details of the claim made. It is an admitted position in the present case that no information given in the return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. It is not as if any statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
